Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 31, 2013 9:30pm-10:00pm PST

9:30 pm
capacity at fisherman's wharf mid week when convention business really helps boost the occupancy in the city. we as a community down at fisherman's wharf support. this we see there is great up side potential and forming the public/private partnership, we see as very positive as we've seen some great results from the tid that's already been set up. so, we definitely down at the wharf support this project. >> thank you. if you have any questions. >> thanks very much. next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is kevin carol. i'm the executive director of the hotel council of san francisco and the council fully supports the proposals you are considering today. that will enable the city to enter into a partnership with the hotel community to invest in the expansion of moscone center. moscone center generates currently hosts 1 million visitors each year and generates more than 1.6 billion in visitor spending. this in turn contributes to millions of dollars to the city
9:31 pm
general fund and supports thousands of jobs. the proposed expansion will generate even more benefits. tourism dollars generated from moscone center activities ripple into every neighborhood in the city. through rate compression which pushes businesses into neighborhoods where business in the neighborhood when hotels around the convention center are actually full, it pushes business out to other hotels outside the downtown corridor. it also helps with paychecks, local purchases and taxes paid by our visitors that are staying there. for these reasons, the hotel community is proud to partner with the city and we thank you to help grow our economy through the joint investment opportunity, we will be entering into with the approval of the proposals that are before you here today. * so, we thank you and we thank supervisor kim also for her partnership with us on this. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is james lim, i'medth regional managing director for [speaker not understood] hotels. [speaker not understood]
9:32 pm
operates 11 hotels in the city and it's spread throughout the neighborhoods as well in downtown san francisco. we support over 800 jobs, local jobs in the city as well. some of our hotels include the [speaker not understood] in japantown, the hotel rex, carlton, laurel lynn at laurel heights, [speaker not understood]. what's wonderful about this initiative is that we know that many of our downtown hotels benefit whenever there is a convention in the city. and what happens is that it creates compression and the business that would otherwise go to this hotels in the city also are spread throughout the neighborhoods such as the laurel and the kabuki and natoma that normally would not get that demand. but whenever there is a convention in the city, we get that compression and the demand. because of these benefits, you know, we really want to support this as a community as well as our company supports this as well. and we do hope that you support this.
9:33 pm
thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. mr. lim, did you forget a key or somebody? thank you, mr. paulson. looks like you're expanding moscone big size ♪ and i looked in from the inside annual budget eyes in your budget eyes in your eyes in your big budget eyes in your [speaker not understood] eyes oh, oh, oh, [speaker not understood] what a big size high-rise what a big large buy from you guys oh, my, my, it will hit the sky in your budget eyes
9:34 pm
in your eyes what a big buy i looked in from the budget inside in your budget eyes make jobs for you guys a big buy i can't hide and it's gonna come up big right ride over the years ride oh, i get so tired working so hard, want it better make it come along in your budget eyes. ♪ >> thank you, mr. paulson. i do have one more speaker card from -- i can't tell the first name, monet on the back end. if you go to the other. good morning or good afternoon, supervisors. my name is [speaker not understood] and i live in district 6. and i support this. it's real good.
9:35 pm
but the thing is we're losing space. it's not too much space down there, is it? i know i walk through there every once in a while. so, are we going to start building up, is that what's going to happen? because all this money, especially on the screen, was kind of confusing to me, give me a little headache. but also, i just -- with the jobs, the construction jobs and i'm quite sure y'all used to me saying this. please don't let the unions put a strangle hold on you because there's more people that aren't able to get into these unions or know enough about getting into the unions to get some of these construction jobs. there's a lot of jobs within district 6. and we need to give out more resources, whatever, about how to get some of these union jobs because if i'm not mistaken it's 25% of the jobs go to the local people. so, here i am again.
9:36 pm
and don't forget us. i don't do construction work. i know a lot of people that do do construction work. i do more waiter type stuff when i did the waiter jobs. but the thing is don't forget, don't let the unions put a strangle hold on you. thank you. >> thank you very much. are there any other members of the public that wish to comment on items number 5 through 7? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, these items are before us. let me make first a motion, a few motions to follow the bla recommendation. first of all, a motion to amend item number 5, the resolution for finding a fiscal feasibility to add a further resolve clause that the board of supervisors will find this project fiscally feasible and responsible subject to the approval of the board of supervisors to create the moscone expansion district next week february 5th, 2013. >> second. >> we have a second for that. we can do that without opposition -- yes.
9:37 pm
[speaker not understood] district attorney's office. >> this is attorney john givener. if it's possible the board would continue the hearing on february 5th and finally make a decision on the 129tion or later. i would recommend [speaker not understood]. * 12th >> fair enough. strike the date from the further resolve clause we'll do it subject to the approval of the board of supervisors on the moscone expansion district. and i have a second to that. we can do that without opposition. and i'd like to make a motion to add a similar clause on items 6 and 7 authorizing and allocating the certificates of participation for this project. subject to the approval of the full board of supervisors, whatever date that may be, of the moscone expansion district. and can we do that without opposition? so moved. thank you very much, everyone involved with that. appreciate your time. mr. clerk, can you please call items -- woops.
9:38 pm
>> i actually had a comment. >> sorry, excuse me. supervisor avalos. >> i didn't realize we had just approved the actual underlying ordinances or resolution. >> we did. do you want to rescind those votes? >> i don't. i'm going to be supportive, but i do want to make some comments about them. everyone come back and have a seat, please. [laughter] >> i just think it's really important to actually acknowledge decisions we make and what the impact is to overall san francisco. i see that we are making a very large investment that's going to have a major impact on moscone and jobs and the hotel room industry. we're using a lot of general fund, a third of the financing come from the general fund. what we don't see -- we're going to see economic benefits to the city, $180 million in a year in economic benefit for the city itself in terms of revenue, about $13 million supported by ted eagan. and, so, we're seeing an
9:39 pm
expansion of general fund dollars that is going to come from this. we've made other decisions recently around providing huge benefit and support general fund for america's cup, for twitter, for tax breaks, and generally what the argument is around making these decisions here at the board of supervisors is that we're going to see a huge general fund benefit and that general fund is going to support all of our serve is he across san francisco. i don't believe that's exactly true. i don't see that we actually get all of our neighborhoods to get the exact general fund support and huge increase in general fund dollars that come from decisions we make around supporting, you know, important parts of our economy and industries in san francisco. a lot of the focus is downtown. i know my district is not necessarily going to get a huge increase in funding for streets, for parks, for public safety. we'll get a little bit of a bump, but we're not going to get a bump that's going to actually be commensurate with decisions we're making here today.
9:40 pm
because we're going to come back with another, another huge general fund support for our local economy for downtown businesses and it's going to be the other part of what we're gaining in terms of [speaker not understood] increasing going back into the place where people feel that we have to provide the greater support for our local economy and our neighborhoods don't get that kind of commensurate support. i understand that's the reality i work in, we live in. i also thank -- i owe it to my constituents and district 11 that we need to be thinking about how we can be much more deliberate about supporting the needs and focus of neighborhoods outside of the downtown corridor. i would lump in the sunset and visitacion valley, bayview hunters point and the richmond a all part of that as well. i just think i felt compelled to say that, although i am supporting this -- these items before us today. and i voted on them so unbeknownst to myself. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you.
9:41 pm
i kind of focused some of my comments on the design of the moscone expansion. i wanted to thank one of our district residents who came up to speak about jobs as well. i want to encourage, you know, when we talk about one of the benefits of our city with this expansion being an increase in jobs to really think about what it means to hire within our neighborhoods and our community. and i know supervisor avalos brought it up as well that of course the benefit can be seen by residents in his neighborhood being higher and seeing the economic benefits of that as well. i'm reminded again because i was at one of our hotels on sixth street, s-r-o hotels on sixth street two blocks from the moscone convention, talking folks ready to work, in my perception ready to work and have work experience that would be great to bring to the hospitality industry as well just two blocks away from their home. just want to -- hope we can have further dialogue about that. and i know we're working on the outreach plan and putting together a task force in the community. and if we can add that aspect into moscone expansion, you know, i'd be really happy to
9:42 pm
work on that with you all. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor kim. and i think to be technically correct, we just did approve the amendment. so i'd like to actually make a motion to have the underlying resolution item number 5 and underlying ordinances on 6 and 7. we can do that without opposition, so moved. thank you now at this point, everyone. mr. clerk, can you please call items 8 and 9 together, please? >> item number, item number 8, resolution retroactively approving the feeder agreement between the city and county of san francisco and the bay area rapid transit district for payment for transfer trips, with a term from july 1, 2010, to june 30, 2020. item number 9, resolution retroactively approving the special transit fare (fast pass) agreement between the city and county of san francisco and the bay area rapid transit district, with a term from january 1, 2010, to june 30, 2014.
9:43 pm
>> thank you very much. we have mr. urskin here head of our mta. welcome, mr. [speaker not understood]. thank you for being here. >> pleasure to be here. good afternoon, chairperson farrell, supervisors mar [speaker not understood]. happy to bring these agreements forward. these agreements have long history between the two agency. one of them dates back more than 25 years. they were last brought back to this body about a year and a half ago, just before i started my tenure as the director of the sfmta and right before my counterpart at bart [speaker not understood] started her tenure as the general manager there. at that time there were some concerns raised by the budget and finance committee and sent it to agencies back with some direction in terms of what they
9:44 pm
wanted to see including bringing both of these agreements together and then some specific provisions or at least guidance. when grace and i first assumed our respective duties in late 2011, we got together and this was one of the first things we talked about because even at that time these agreements were in arrears, what were past expiration. the two agencies were withholding payment from each other and we decided as the new kid on the block that we needed to get together, take heed of what the message and direction we got was from the board of supervisors and get these agreements done so that we can move forward. we fairly quickly were able to come to agreement in principle on the shape of these two agreements. and while i recognize and
9:45 pm
appreciate the intent of the board of supervisors to hear these two together, they do have -- they do operate somewhat differently and have different drivers and dynamics that impact them and that's why the shape of them, each of them is a little bit different. but we were able to come to agreement. our staff spent a lot of time in the succeeding months negotiating the details. and after a lot of back and forth, probably late summer or so, we came to final agreement on what we both believe and grace wasn't able to be here today for this meeting. i know i can speak for her saying both she and i believe these are good, fair and equitable agreements for both agencies. and important in advancing the regional nature of transit in the bay area. we then brought sfmta brought these through the sfmta board and we're now here for your
9:46 pm
consideration, that those two different items, the feeder agreement which is item 8 and the fast pass agreement which is item 9. there are some -- i want to thank mr. rose and his office for their work in a very comprehensive report. we have a lot of iteration back and forth both [speaker not understood] and bart providing and answering questions. he has made some recommendations which we are ready to accept all of. all of them -- both of them on item 8 as well as the one on item 9. i would just want to say that with item 9 the idea bringing the cap down to 10.5 million is fine with us and it's fine with bart for the relatively short term of the agreement. i know the different term of the agreement is an issue of concern. it was our goal to have both of these be longer term agreements because it takes a lot of time and energy to renegotiate these. we also both want budget
9:47 pm
certainty moving forward which we haven't had. it was actually the sfmta's request that we have shorter term for the fast pass agreement while we wait for the bart board of directors to put in place a fair policy similar to the one we have at the sfmta which kind of sets -- which guides future fare increases. so, it was only for that reason that we kept this agreement short at this period of time. our understanding is that our staff is bringing to the bart board for consideration such a policy if that is accepted, and adopted by the bart board. it would be our intent to go back and negotiate an extension out to this, the same 2020 time period as we have with the feeder agreement. if we are able to do that, then we would need to negotiate -- bart would want to and i think would be reasonable to negotiate a higher cap. but that said, we accept the recommendations of the budget analyst. i know there are some questions
9:48 pm
and we'd be happy, both my staff and bart staff are here. i think the budget analyst report was comprehensive. i think we briefed all the members of the committee. so, at this point if you want, can bring staff up to walk through the details or we can just open it up for your questions and budget analyst report. >> we could have staff come up and walk through the details if you want. i think all of us have a number of questions on this. so, maybe we can have the detail come first and we can ask whoever is appropriate at that time. >> okay. >> good morning, supervisors.
9:49 pm
my name is jason lee and i'm with the sfmta. this morning i'll go over the two agreements comparing side by side the basic provisions of each of them. as maybe you're aware, the fast pass agreement applies to trips taken on bart within san francisco using the muni adult fast pass. >> excuse me, sir. is this part of the document that was delivered to us this morning? >> it's included in the letter that mr. rifkin sent you. this is stand alone in a little bit different format. same content. >> can we make one comment? this is the letter itself is nine-pages full of numbers. i think we all can digest things pretty quickly, but it was e-mailed to us this morning. and so for us to honestly have a chance to look at this and digest it and kind of come to a thought process about how we think about these things, i think we need it well in advance of the morning of an 11 o'clock meeting. just a comment to that. it's really unacceptable from
9:50 pm
our point of view. >> i apologize for that. so, we have two agreements of fast past agreement in which we pay bart for people using the adult fast pass within san francisco. we pay on the per-trip basis. and the feeder agreement, bart pays us based on our provision of services to and from their stations. historically the fast pass agreement has been based on the fixed discount rate off the regular bart ticket. so, for example, the last agreement gave about a 32% discount, the reimbursement rate was probably 32% less than the price of the full fare ticket. and per the bart board fare policy which has been in place over 10 years at this point, the bart board regularly increases fares every two years at a rate consistent with cpi
9:51 pm
less half a percent for productivity improvements. with this fare policy in place over the last decade, there has been -- there have been occasions when the fare has actually increased faster than the rate of inflation. for example, as identified by the budget and legislative analyst in 2011, fares from 2006 to 2011 increased at a cumulative 40% rate or 7% annualized rate. the contract for the fast pass is currently at current reimbursement rate is worth $7.9 million. and for the proposed rate increase, it would be $9.2 million. >> so, quick question for you. why are we allowing this rate to increase like this? >> well, so, so this dollar.19 was based on having that fixed discount of 32%.
9:52 pm
the bart fare went from $1.50 to $1.75. based on this particular agreement, we would go up consistent with that. and from there on out it would be based on cpi. >> so, i understand that comment. to me it's part of the core issue of what's going on here. but we're basing it upon bart fare increases which is out of our control. and to me, but it's coming out of our budgets now. so, we're kind of linking and falling victim to whatever bart decides to do. and that strikes me as a raw deal. , i'm trying to get an understanding. historically how it's been done that's one thing. but we're here to decide how it is going forward. we're trying to understand why and the justification for this. 32% as a historical formula that's well and good but i'd like to understand why today. >> i think it was the sfmta [speaker not understood]. i think it was the sfmta's understanding that we would do this one time and then go forward from here it would be based on cpi. so, this agreement would take us to 2014 based on that
9:53 pm
formula. but i understand, i understand what you're saying. * there. for the feeder agreement, historically it's been based on a different methodology. when it was originally conceived in the mid 1980s, it was based upon the actual number of feeder trips that would [speaker not understood] at that point, multiplied by the net cost per passenger. and that cost per passenger was basically the total amount cost minus the fare revenue that we got. the budget and legislative analysts in their report last year calculated that would be approximately $15 million under that same methodology. in 1989, both parties agreed to -- at that point to transition over to a sales tax based methodology. and one of the issues there was that the sales tax methodology was easier to do because we could not count ridership.
9:54 pm
we didn't have any way of tracking that ridership electronically. and, so, so, over time that number has fluctuated based upon sales tax revenues and how the sales tax revenues have fluctuated. so, for example, in fiscal year 2009 to 2011, the payment under this current form would be increased by 18% because of the fact that the economy had affected sale tax received that weren't received. we recognize the $15 million versus the contract value of approximately $2.6 million is quite a substantial difference. during negotiations we discussed this issue and we were very pragmatic about this. we did not feel that it would be feasible to transition to an amount like $15 million overnight.
9:55 pm
so, that's the feeder agreement. in term of -- those are the historical developments of both agreements. and now i'd like to walk you through the proposed amendments to the agreement. so, for the past pass agreement, the term of this would be from retroactive from january 2010 through june 2014. and for the feeder agreement the term would be from july 2010 to june 2020. the difference here is ed explained that the bart board
9:56 pm
fare policy has expired with the last fare increase in july 2012. and, so, this fast p pass agreement would coincide with the renewal of the next fare policy. * >> just to your point, so, it's the feeder agreement going back to 2010? >> both the feeder agreement and the fast pass agreement go back to 2010. the fast pass agreement would expire in june of 2014 and the feeder agreement would expire in june of 2020. so, there is a difference there based upon the bart [speaker not understood] fare policy and that being renewed anticipated this year some time. >> right. so, the fast pass agreement, what are we paying them right now? >> currently for fiscal year 2012, the contract value under the current rate of $1.02 is $7.9 million and under the proposed rate it would be $9.2
9:57 pm
million. >> and prior years in terms of reserving, i'm imagining reserve again in your budgets, it was at 102? >> it was at $1.2, correct. >> and, so, we have before us a proposal to retroactively increase it? * >> retroactively going back to january 2010, correct. so, the june -- in july -- at 2009 bart implemented their fare increase. the last fast pass agreement expired at the end of 2009. so, it would be -- this retroactivity would take place six months after the fare increase that this would compare to. >> thanks. i don't get why we do this, but let's keep going. >> okay. >> mr. lee, can i say mr. rifkin pointed out that 2020 for the feeder agreement, the contract expense of that, this one would extend only to 2014 because we're trying to
9:58 pm
maximize our ability to negotiate after the bart board's fare policy increase. and this allows us to negotiate to our own interests for the mta and the city by having this contract only go to 2014? >> well, i think the idea behind going to 2014 was we wanted to wait and see what the bart board fare policy would be. my understanding from bart's staff, conversation, is they are proposing a fare policy that's similar to what or consistent with what's currently there today. so, that was the idea behind having it expire in 2014. >> so, what would happen if we equalized both contracts to 2014 or 2020, what's in our best interest as the mta or the city? >> certainly that's possible to equalize the contracts there. i'm not going to opine on whether -- what's best for the city or not.
9:59 pm
i think maybe that's a more appropriate question for mr. rifkin on that. but certainly it's useful. >> well, right now doing it to 2014 so we can have better future negotiating leverage? >> i think the idea behind 2014 is just so we understand what parts fare policy is. staff has proposed a similar fare policy as in place today. but nothing has been adopted at this point so we don't know with certainty what that fare policy would be. >> okay. >> okay. so, -- >> excuse me, supervisor avalos. >> thank you, chair farrell. we had the fast pass agreement before us, before budget and finance earlier. i'm not sure exactly when it was, last year -- >> 2011, yeah. >> 2011. and at that point there was a proposal for